rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Pesmard Flurrmn) (01/29/85)
> I do not have contempt for our mixed society. The other guys have the right to > be wrong. So much for your lack of contempt ... > But I am NOT going to keep my mind and conscience in a constant > flux trying to redefine a moral system without absolutes for every problem > that pops up in society. Despite the irrelevancy and arbitrariness with which you define your "absolutes", absolute only in the sense that YOU believe their veracity. Absolute implies moral correctness for ALL, and I think (in other groups) we've discussed the wishful thinking involved in believing in absolute good and evil when such notions are always based on the perspective of the observer. > When I try to prove a point I refer to higher sources whom I have accepted. > It makes it easier for the reader to retrace my position since none oh the > sources are secret. "Whom YOU have accepted". (Sounds like someone else we know?) Others among us do not. Some not at all, others with less arbitrary conviction than you yourself hold. > One of the problems with using natural law arguments IN SHORT postings is that > while the natural law should be OBVIOUS to all observers, it is not because of > the fallen state of man. Ideally Rosen and I should be able to apply the > natural law to the same problem and come with the same solution. If you didn't make wishful thinking assumptions, perhaps we would. > Rich and I have gone round before in net.abortion with the same results > (and style I might add... I can't stand his posturings either...but at least > it's obvious to every one else... :-) ) I'm sorry you don't like my "posturings". I take that sentence to mean that your tirades do not involve posturing, but rather "the truth". Intriguing... > ... Anti-thetical positions do that. I claim that the individual is > subordinate to a higher authority and that authority has a position on > morality and this position explains the evil of pornography and the beauty of > sexuality. And I (and others) claim otherwise. Yet your articles continue to refer back to that claim as if others are beholden to accept your claim. > A further discussion should be in net.religion. Better yet. Take it offline. Or forget it entirely if you're so inclined. With your vacuous pretensions about my own beliefs and your repetitive iterations of the same assumptions after multiple replies made it clear that not everyone makes those assumptions (not because we're "wrong", but because there's no reason to do so), it appears that any further discourse would be redundant and unnecessary. It certainly no longer belongs in net.women . -- "Discipline is never an end in itself, only a means to an end." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
zubbie@wlcrjs.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (02/02/85)
If you or anyone on this net wants to conduct a logical argument by quoting a HIGHER AUTHORITY ...I personally will be only to willing to accept that arguement if that higher authority will come on line and justify the arguments or if quotes from publications or presentations by that HIGHER AUTHORITY can either be placed on hte net or refered to by say Library of Congress reference. I will however also accept ant emotional or religious argument based on a HIGHER AUTHORITY as derived from dogma and subject to treatment as such. =============================================================================== From the mostly vacant environment of Jeanette L. Zobjeck (ihnp4!wlcrjs!zubbie) All opinions expressed may not even be my own. ===============================================================================